StaceyPowers

News flash!!
HBO is making a series about The Last of Us, with the creators of Chernobyl. 
The Chernobyl mini series on HBO was pretty good in my opinion

One of the biggest giveaways that he wasn’t working on BioShock 2 is the vending machines. There’s no “Welcome to the CIRCUS of VALUES!” I was amused to find out that is actually Ken Levine’s voice. So, since he wasn’t there in the second game, no vending machine voice. His voice is back for some of the vending machines in Infinite (i.e. “I appreciate a woman who appreciates QUALITY!”)
Anyway, did you finish Infinite? What did you think? And are you playing Burial at Sea? I adored Infinite and could probably write a novel about why, and I loved the ending, as bittersweet and ambiguous as it was. Burial at Sea I have mixed feelings about. It’s definitely worth playing, but I have issues with it.

Hah, ignore my questions on the other thread about whether you finished. Obviously you did :)

I'm glad you loved the game. I feel it's a masterpiece on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. I felt like the ending of Infinite was so victorious--like by cutting off that unwanted set of branches from the multiversal tree through sheer will, Booker became a FACT, a constant, without the Comstock variable. I actually believe in a multiverse and am sort of obsessed with trying to be a constant and to value the likely constants in my life across time and space--so I guess you could say for me the game was almost like a religious experience. 

Burial at Sea kind of bothered me because I felt like it erased the messages of hope and redemption of Infinite somewhat--Elizabeth seems doomed to repeat the mistakes of her lineage, even though they erased that lineage, etc. And ironically, I think that version of Comstock she murdered was actually on a redemption path toward becoming more like Booker. But I really like what you said here--that in a way, doing so was what erased her and created balance--indeed, her existence did seem to be an anomaly, and it kind of makes sense she'd wipe herself out in that fashion. Still, it would have been nice if our heroes hadn't been consumed by all that self-loathing in the end. For all their flaws, they were remarkable people. Comstock was a monster on an incredible scale--so the fact that Booker managed to beat him means that the good in him towered even higher than his demons, and the same was true for Elizabeth in Infinite. I guess I just wished she'd been able to see that in Burial at Sea. Still, her act in saving Sally did a wonderful job tying full circle to the thematic elements of the first two games and the protection of the innocents as what makes a life worth living--and what makes it worth sacrificing if necessary.

***SPOILERS***
 

I just finished the game during the weekend. Oh my god this game was awesome, I liked the little details with the Lutteces where they always knew if Booker will get heads or tails 122 times because it was not the first time that they tried to save Elizabeth, or how they knew he will get the ball 77 in the raffle, Constants and Variables. The ending was sad, I feel that Elizabeth's death in Burial at Sea was the universe's way of creating balance, Elizabeth only existed because of father Comstock and since she got rid of the "last" version of him on Rapture there was no reason for her to continue to exist.

A billion I could do. I think.🤷🏻‍♀️

One million dollars and I had to rely on that for the rest of my life? To those on the bottom, a million sounds great. But in all truth, that's not exactly a lot of money these days. It wouldn't last very long. So I would say no to it, and keep my games.

I wanted to get bigger screen badly but then realized that I have no plans on getting new apartment. 

SPOILERS follow:
 
On a replay of BioShock Infinite, I stumbled on something that confuses me. In the room on the zeppelin right before you go deal with Comstock, there is some artwork on the walls in panels that shows the journey Elizabeth and Booker have taken over the course of the game to reach that moment.
I am not confused about why Comstock knows about those events—I know he was looking through tears at possible futures. My question is, why does he display beautiful artwork proudly of these events? Considering what’s about to happen to him, it’s utterly bizarre. All I can come up with is:
1-Maybe he thinks he will survive the encounter.
2-He’s tired, thinks he’ll win through Elizabeth, and doesn’t care if he survives the encounter.
Or
3-He has a secret deathwish and welcomes his demise/failure.
The last of those would be the most interesting possibility, though he really does seem to have put his all into killing Booker. Then again, a guy with major self-loathing issues and amazing mental compartmentalizing capabilities (consider his racism), I wouldn’t put it past . I mean, he’s literally created his own private hell in Columbia. Being as he wants to punish himself, maybe he also secretly wants to clear the debt. I thought this theory was outlandish until I just finished Burial at Sea Part 1, wherein there was at least one Comstock seeking redemption (and forgetfulness, yes--but via Sally, definitely self-improvement).
Thoughts?
@DylanC @skyfire

SPOILERS BELOW
 
 
I still have not played Burial at Sea, but I have now played Bioshock 1, 2 and Infinite.
So much about Infinite felt (and feels) like a puzzle I am trying to solve. I thought playing 1 and 2 would provide some answers, but I have nothing but more questions and confusion.
Elizabeth said, “There’s always a man, always a lighthouse, always a city.” Obviously, we’ve got the lighthouse and the city. But who is the man?
Is Booker Andrew Ryan? Jack? Delta? And what about Elizabeth?
The clearest parallels seem to be between Elizabeth and Eleanor, and thus potentially between Booker and Delta. We know Delta is a diver that the people of Rapture nicknamed “Johnny Topside,” but his real name was never revealed. Then again, his name wouldn’t necessarily matter. That could be a variable.
I am aware that a “Booker” exists in Burial at Sea, which just increases my confusion. Not that two versions of a man can’t exist in one universe; obviously that was all over Infinite.
The other odd thing is all the links in the environment, as well as other parallel figures in the stories.
Like it’s strange to me that the plasmids exist in both worlds, and the vending machines are nearly identical, and so forth. And there are similar characters like Fink and Fontaine (who could be the same man). But I could easily imagine the same personnel who would join Rapture would also find their way to Columbia.
Lamb certainly reminds me of Comstock, though it would seem odd to assert that Delta and Lamb are the same person.
Anyone have any theories about all this, particularly Booker and Elizabeth’s potential Rapture identities?
@DylanC Tagging you again in hopes you have some thoughts to share.

Please note: SPOILERS below.
I just wrapped up my first playthrough of Bioshock Infinite. I am pretty sure there are no solid answers to these questions, but if anyone has anything they’d like to chime in, please do.
Here are some things I’m unclear about:
1-Why did Booker only lose his memory while crossing between universes at the start of the game? Why not on other crosses?
2-What is the significance of his nosebleed? I get that he is dead in other realities … but we all are.
3-What are the implications of the after-credits scene? All I can come up with is that this is a surviving Booker and Anna (or a series of them) who splintered off before the baptism event (in other words, he never went there).
4-Was he drowned before or after he made the actual “decision” about the baptism? (I don’t think there is really any way to confirm when in time the “decision point” occurred) In other words, did this kill Comstock and Booker, or just Comstock?

I just wrapped up my initial playthrough of Bioshock Infinite, and have thought about it pretty much nonstop ever since.
SPOILERS below. Just a few reasons this game blew my mind:
-A logical, well-reasoned story about the multiverse (I feel most people get the concept wrong)
-A different take on the nature and value of choice than you usually see in arguments about choice v. determinism.
-An unbelievably atmospheric setting. Columbia feels “real” to me still, like it’s hidden somewhere, just on the other side of a portal to another world.
-Amazing character development and some of the most brilliant “show-don’t-tell” writing I’ve ever seen. By the end of the game, you know that in a pretty literal way, Booker has been battling his own demons in his own personal hell through the entire game. The setting tells the story of the man.
-Seriously inspirational. The ending ripped my heart out, but at the same time, I loved it as an achievement of ultimate redemption. 
 
If you’ve played the game, please share your thoughts!

Excellent analysis, and you’ve expressed your thoughts really clearly. I completely agree with you that the entire philosophy behind Rapture was flawed from the off. The irony to me is that Fontaine did exactly what Andrew Ryan encouraged everyone in Rapture to do with its runaway cut-throat capitalist ideology. And Rapture ended the way that it would inevitably end. Ryan was surprisingly naïve in his belief that the system he put in place was sustainable.
I hear a lot of people say this, though I liked it. It didn’t have any “twists” in it and lacked the cleverness of both BioShock 1 and Infinite, but I thought it still told a solid story, albeit one which was more interesting personally than politically. Although I did like that it took on collectivism and its dangers when taken to extremes. What do you feel would have made for some improvements in the plot?
One thing that did irritate me was that I really wished Eleanor had killed her mother in my playthrough, but alas, the only way I can make this happen is apparently to make decisions earlier in the game that feel lousy to me.

I'm glad you enjoyed it! I think there was something cooler about the lighting in the first game, but it's hard for me to explain why it was cooler. But Rapture still was awesome to explore more of, and I loved the story/characters. Also, it's almost odd Ken Levine didn't work on BioShock 2, given how strongly the themes seem to link to Infinite's.

Thank you. “Strong grasp on reality.” That is exactly the matter in question here.
If a video game really did “influence” a given person to commit a violent act, what that draws into question is the person’s psychology. That person must have a difficult time identifying the difference between the fantasy world in the game (where there are no real consequences) and the real world (where there are real consequences).
Such a person is likely either 1-young and developing, and just needs more time and parental guidance, or 2-is an adult and requires psychological help from a professional so that they can learn the difference between fantasy and reality. It is this psychosis in their brain that ultimately produced their actions.
Video games do not feature actual violence. They feature simulated violence. No harm is done on any entity. When you riddle your pixelated opponent with bullets, nobody hurts. Nobody bleeds. Nobody dies. Nobody’s will is violated. There is literally no commonality there with an actual act of violence which entails pain, harm, loss of function, death, etc. for an actual person.
An actual violent video game would be one where if you push a button, a real living being on the other end would experience some kind of suffering. This thankfully is not something that exists. 
For a lot of us, gaming provides a safe psychological outlet where we can broaden our range of experiences without any actual loss of control.
It’s also worth pointing out that there are violent video games that teach lessons in morality. I would say that the BioShock series or The Last of Us are prime examples. Both series send messages of hope, kindness, love, and protection of the innocents.

Thank you. “Strong grasp on reality.” That is exactly the matter in question here.
If a video game really did “influence” a given person to commit a violent act, what that draws into question is the person’s psychology. That person must have a difficult time identifying the difference between the fantasy world in the game (where there are no real consequences) and the real world (where there are real consequences).
Such a person is likely either 1-young and developing, and just needs more time and parental guidance, or 2-is an adult and requires psychological help from a professional so that they can learn the difference between fantasy and reality. It is this psychosis in their brain that ultimately produced their actions.
Video games do not feature actual violence. They feature simulated violence. No harm is done on any entity. When you riddle your pixelated opponent with bullets, nobody hurts. Nobody bleeds. Nobody dies. Nobody’s will is violated. There is literally no commonality there with an actual act of violence which entails pain, harm, loss of function, death, etc. for an actual person.
An actual violent video game would be one where if you push a button, a real living being on the other end would experience some kind of suffering. This thankfully is not something that exists. 
For a lot of us, gaming provides a safe psychological outlet where we can broaden our range of experiences without any actual loss of control.
It’s also worth pointing out that there are violent video games that teach lessons in morality. I would say that the BioShock series or The Last of Us are prime examples. Both series send messages of hope, kindness, love, and protection of the innocents.

I have an 8yo son who has played AC4 for at least 3 years. In life, he has not killed any ship captains or crew, plundered any ships nor hunted sharks and whales in that time because he has a strong grasp on reality. These criminals who blame video games for their psychotic behaviour are using that as an excuse to reduce their punishment. Many millions, if not billions play games. If we were all driven to kill because of them there would be literally nobody left. Frankly @Joshua Farrell, to believe that video games, or any entertainment media, instigate violence, means you're kinda stupid. Just because you can't play COD without feeling less respect for the sanctity of human life doesn't mean the rest of us are that unstable. Most of us can play these games, live in the fantasy, then when it's over, reconnect with reality and live our normal lives. If you can't, then that's your own VERY SERIOUS problem. Get help.

In Bioshock 1, there is a point where Fontaine says something to you about “nothing down here deserves to be saved.” From a moral standpoint, I think it’s fairly obvious the Little Sisters deserve to be saved. But do you think anything else in Rapture deserves to be saved?
It’s easy for me to lean toward his misanthropy regarding the place. But judging from some interactions and recordings lying around the place, to me it seems like most of the populace were foolish albeit ordinary people who invested into a concept that wasn’t going to pan out. I suspect that at least some of them must have survived (I haven’t played Bioshock 2 yet) after the city went insane, and like Tannenbaum, may have evolved as human beings (in the way that truly matters). So I reckon Rapture might be worth saving. Plus, the place itself is a marvel, and surely such vision deserves to be spared and redirected toward something positive if possible.
Did you feel Rapture had any redeeming qualities or possibilities?

Actually, I thought Bioshock 2 was excellent (I just finished it). It lacks some of the "cleverness" of the first game, but the storyline is solid, the locations are cool, you learn a lot more about the history of Rapture--including insights into Bioshock 1, and there were a couple of gameplay elements I liked better as well. I would say it is my least favorite of the three games, but that still makes it an amazing game.

Skipping it would be missing out. It is a solid game.

*****SPOILERS BELOW.*****
 
 
 
I finished my first playthrough of Bioshock 2 last night. Amazing game overall, and somewhat under recognized in my opinion.
Some matters did confuse me though, in particular the ending. I don’t understand for sure what killed Delta. In fact, I’m not even sure if Delta died.
My understanding of the situation is that once the bond between Delta and Eleanor was severed, if Delta were left untreated, he would either 1-lapse into a coma, or 2-go insane.
By setting the explosives, I assume Lamb’s goal was to kill Delta on the instant. This would transport him to a Vita Chamber, where he would regenerate. But by then the sub would be on its way to the surface, and Persephone would be sinking into the depths where he’d ultimately die permanently.
Instead, he survived and hung on long enough to reach the surface.
What happened to him then? Did he have a delayed death from his injuries? Or was he slipping into a coma? If the latter, would Eleanor’s act in removing the ADAM have killed him? Or would he have remained comatose?
At that rate, how did Eleanor plan to save him on the surface in the first place? I never was clear on that.
I appreciate any light anyone can shed!
@DylanC In particular, if you have any insights or theories, I'd love to hear them

I actually heaved a breath of relief when I was not forced to endure a sex scene in Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Oh, on this note, arguably the funniest clunky sex scene I’ve seen is in Origins when Morrigan gets it on with either the player or Loghain late in the game, and suddenly, out of nowhere, she is wearing a bra which she most definitely has not been wearing for the rest of the game. Like, what’d she do, walk up to Leliana and be like, “Need to borrow your bra? To be having sex, one Must be wearing a bra?”

I was reminiscing with someone recently over an MMO we used to play like a decade ago, and I laughed when I found out that in some respects, the essential conflict is still the same.
Basically, most of the players kill villager NPCs to level up, which then re-spawn. But if one is trying to RP logically, the villagers must be treated like real people. Thus, one might feel compelled to wage a war over the villagers (if playing “good”). But then, all the other players complain that one is being unreasonable by protecting them.
This sort of thing drove me crazy back when I played. I just couldn’t get over how illogical and inconsistent it was to throw a fit in an RPG when someone (like me) behaves in an IC way by protecting the villagers. Yes, it makes leveling harder, but that’s an OOC complaint. But somehow, I could never get these people to grok that.
Does anyone else get annoyed when they see inconsistencies in how other players RP in MMOs?

I want to say one of Disturbed’s songs was in a video game, but I can’t for the life of me remember what game. I’m pretty sure the song was Down With The Sickness, though.

Getting a game and finding it can't run would be incredibly frustrating. Almost as frustrating as trying to beat Dark Souls 2.

I'll probably get the Collection eventually anyway when I upgrade to a system where I can play the remasters. 
Usually I am the sort of completionist you mention, but … puzzles. Some things frustrate me even more than the “but it isn’t finished” I have in the back of my head.